It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ISIS downs Jordanian F-16, captures pilot

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

That doesn't mean it's impossible for an SA-7 to bring an F-16 down. It's more difficult in normal circumstances. That doesn't mean the pilot didn't make a mistake, or there was some other problem that he was paying more attention to. No one thought an SA-6 could shoot down a stealth fighter, but it did.




posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: intrptr

Just because you can hear the jets or see them on a zoomed in camera doesn't mean that they are within a deadly weapon employment zone for a MANPAD or other SAM system. The aircraft referenced/seen in the video you posted is a B-1, likely loitering above 8 or 10,000 feet (using the "JDAM CAS" tactics Zaph brought up) which puts it out of reach of most MANPAD systems.

Hi justwanttofly, welcome to ATS!


…which puts it out of reach of most MANPAD systems.

But not all, or other types of Anti air systems. My question was since they do fly low enough, how come no US jets have been downed to date?

Answer: Because IS ISn't real, the real goal is laying waste to Syria.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


The "close" in CAS means the targets are close to friendlies, not that the aircraft itself is close to anything.


"Close" means close.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Neither does it mean that whenever bombs fall they aren't falling on Syria. Safe bet though, that the claim will always be they fall on ISiS.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   
way back at the start of the combined Air campaign against ISIS...

I suggested that the USA, British & France would strike the Prime Targets and the lesser coalition members would be flying sorties against backwater outposts of the ISIS...3rd level targets...

and that the role of air-forces like Jordan was to fill the skies with noise and decoys to help mask the principal attack craft from the USA.


The Jordanian military has confirmed the loss of an F-16AM over ISIS held territory.
...
wonder why it took so long?
now the coalition leader USA has a clearer picture of the ISIS ability & wherewithal to down the attack aircraft..
it's not a game changer BUT the F-16 and Jordanian pilot is valuable intel on future protocol, target selection, etc.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Sorry mate, choosing to define something how you want to define it doesn't make it right. Close air support means the targets are close to friendlies. Saying "close means close" doesn't somehow encompass the aircraft all have to fly low and slow.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

And yet, they're completely IGNORING the targets they'd have to hit to destroy Syria. Amazing that.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well it game over for the poor man..


and onn a christams note




posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Sorry, but you don't get to define it.


In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.[1]

Conversely, deep air support (DAS) is air action directed on objectives not in the immediate vicinity of friendly forces for the purposes of neutralizing and destroying enemy reserves and weapons, and for interfering with enemy command, supply, communications, and observations.

The determining factor for CAS is detailed integration, not proximity. CAS may need to be conducted far from friendly forces, if the mission requires detailed integration with the fire and movement of these forces. A closely related subset of air interdiction, battlefield air interdiction denotes interdiction against units with near-term effects on friendly units, but which does not require integration with friendly troop movements. The term "battlefield air interdiction" is not currently used in US joint doctrine.

en.wikipedia.org...


Close air support (CAS) can be conducted at any place
and time friendly forces are in close proximity to
enemy forces. The word “close” does not imply a
specific distance; rather, it is situational. The
requirement for detailed integration because of
proximity, fires, or movement is the determining factor.

At times, CAS may be the best means to exploit tactical
opportunities in the offense or defense. CAS provides
fires to destroy, disrupt, suppress, fix, harass,
neutralize, or delay enemy forces.



2. Close Air Support Defined
a. CAS is air action by fixed-wing (FW) and rotary-wing (RW) aircraft against
hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces, and requires detailed
integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.
b. CAS is planned and executed to support ground tactical units. CAS execution is
tightly integrated at the tactical level with the fire and maneuver of supported ground
forces. The air apportionment and allocation process for CAS occurs at the operational
level. CAS planning focuses on providing timely and accurate fires to friendly forces in
close proximity to the enemy.
c. CAS can be conducted at any place and time friendly forces are in close
proximity to enemy forces. The word “close” does not imply a specific distance; rather,
it is situational. The requirement for detailed integration because of proximity, fires, or movement is the determining factor. At times, CAS may be the best means to
exploit tactical opportunities in the offense or defense. CAS provides fires to destroy,
disrupt, suppress, fix, harass, neutralize, or delay enemy forces.

fas.org...



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: St Udio
way back at the start of the combined Air campaign against ISIS...

I suggested that the USA, British & France would strike the Prime Targets and the lesser coalition members would be flying sorties against backwater outposts of the ISIS...3rd level targets...

and that the role of air-forces like Jordan was to fill the skies with noise and decoys to help mask the principal attack craft from the USA.


The Jordanian military has confirmed the loss of an F-16AM over ISIS held territory.
...
wonder why it took so long?
now the coalition leader USA has a clearer picture of the ISIS ability & wherewithal to down the attack aircraft..
it's not a game changer BUT the F-16 and Jordanian pilot is valuable intel on future protocol, target selection, etc.


 




The United States and several Arab allies have been striking the Islamic State group in Syria since September 23, and U.S. and other international warplanes have been waging an air campaign against the extremists in Iraq for even longer.
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates are participating in the Syria strikes, with Qatari logistical support.

Staunch U.S. ally Jordan has provided a logistics base for the U.S.-led air campaign and is a hub for intelligence-gathering operations against the jihadists, a western diplomatic source said...
He told MailOnline: 'Isis do have the capability to hit aircraft, as they have surface-to-air missiles and heavy machine guns.'


It was not immediately known how the fighters shot down the warplane. But the Islamic State group is known to have stocks of Russian-made Igla anti-aircraft missiles.

The shoulder-fired weapon has long been in the Syrian and Iraqi government arsenals - it was used during the 1991 Gulf War by Iraqi forces to down a British Tornado jet, for example. More recently, militants in Chechnya have used them to down Russian helicopters.

The Raqqa Media Center, an agency of activists that operates openly in IS-ruled areas with permission of the group, said the plane was downed near the village of Hamra Ghannam outside Raqqa.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



so... the jet crashed but most likely was not shot down,
the relatives & family of the pilot are making attempts for his release or at least humane treatment

it seems 'the mail on line' source is the most level headed report, while the other reports are wild



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


And yet, they're completely IGNORING the targets they'd have to hit to destroy Syria. Amazing that.

Because you type ignoring in caps doesn't make it more true. But I read between lines, so go head on.

Of course they won't admit they are bombing Syrian targets. Thats what the "(I)maginary [S)tate" exists for.

We're not bombing the State of Syria, we're bombing the "Islamic State". I'm baffled by this from you. Are you supporting violations of National Sovereignty of foreign countries, waging aggressive war without just cause?



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So every single journalistic agency is the entire world is hiding the fact that they're bombing the crap out of Syrian targets, that would be required to be hit to destroy Syria then? Those are some seriously well hidden lines you're reading then since you're about the only one that can see them



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Close air support means the targets are close to friendlies. Saying "close means close" doesn't somehow encompass the aircraft all have to fly low and slow.

Doesn't preclude it either.

The closer they are the easier to get eyes on 'friendly' positions.

Pickling on GPS coordinates with "precision guided munitions" might sell to the public but boots on the ground and fly boys like to coordinate with better due process if they can.

Especially in cratered moonscapes, over "enemy" territory, with combatants that communicate in foreign languages and all 'dress alike'.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


So every single journalistic agency is the entire world is hiding the fact that they're bombing the crap out of Syrian targets,

Just like they hid the WMD in the Deserts of Iraq… yes.

Just like the German and Japanese were explicitly lied to by their respective governments during WWII, never allowing the truth through, yes.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

No, it doesn't preclude it. What does preclude it is reality, which is that not all CAS missions are flown 500 feet off the deck. CAS can be delivered from any altitude the aircraft is flying at, that it's munitions are capable of being dropped or fired from.

Why you can't get beyond the fact (which is what it is) that CAS doesn't have to be dropped from close range and low altitude, I don't know. It can be, but it doesn't have to be.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Pickling on GPS coordinates with "precision guided munitions" might sell to the public but boots on the ground and fly boys like to coordinate with better due process if they can.


Right, because they don't have things now that could transmit the friendly forces positions....oh wait.

2005:


Capt. Andy McElvaine, weapons officer for the 40th Air Expeditionary Group, said “B-52” and “close air support” historically don’t belong in the same sentence. But technological advances have changed that.

“We’ve been providing a lot of close air support pretty effectively,” he said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Some A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, Army helicopters and Marine Corps aircraft continue to support ground operations in more traditional roles, flying in low while engaging the enemy. But now those fighting against Americans and Afghan government forces on the ground also have to contend with enemies they’ll never see.

That’s because the B-52s perform their missions between 22,000 and 39,000 feet. Sometimes they leave vapor trails. But Capt. Adam, an aircraft commander who declined to give his last name because he said he’s engaged in ongoing operations, said most of the time crews never see their enemies or the effect of the weapons they drop.

He said there was an exception recently on a mission after dark.

The 2,000-pound GBU-31 bomb “lit up the entire night sky” when it struck its target, he said.

www.stripes.com...


Among the upgrades is a guided “smart weapon” capability in the B-52H’s internal weapons bay, which provides a 66 percent increase in guided weapons payload. Another current program is an upgrade to the latest Advanced Targeting Pod, which will increase the B-52H effectiveness when performing close air support and other missions.

www.dodbuzz.com...


1/11/2012 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- A developmental test team from Edwards partnered with an operational test team from Texas to accelerate testing and deliver a mission-critical capability to the warfighter - B-1B bombers can now find and strike moving targets in close air support of ground troops even quicker than before.

www.edwards.af.mil...

And yet apparently you know better than the military planners and crews that have been actually on scene doing the mission since 2001.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So, Russia, who said they would retaliate if the US attacked Syria is a paper tiger and is ignoring it. Every single country that doesn't like the US is just ignoring it.

Wow, the US is more powerful than I ever imagined if they can force all those countries to just ignore it while they destroy a country.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Wow, the US is more powerful than I ever imagined if they can force all those countries to just ignore it while they destroy a country.

And in the wrong, too.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

You honestly believe that the US can quiet every single country out there that would be happy to scream about them destroying Syria? Just wow.



posted on Dec, 25 2014 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Bobs,

Thank you for your reply. When we talk of the US, however, it gets really complicated because that country is may be the only one which is a cluster of agencies and organizations which have the power to take initiative to A GLOBAL SCALE without the actual permission or knowledge of its governmental officials. CIA, for example, or the Federal Reserve, or the largest Corporations to name the most popular one on the surface.
I agree with you that some American players are absolutely involved, but I don't dare to say the USA as a country is. And this should make us think of the meaning of true democracy, or how being a Federation really benefit the people against allowing black ops to go unpunished. Anyways I don't believe the Western power is the only one feeding ISIS.
Best



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join